Here’s an ad in favor of Prop. 37:

And here’s a commercial from the “No on 37″ campaign:

Edited transcript from Scott Shafer’s conversation with John Myers:

SCOTT SHAFER: So, John Myers, how is the pro-Proposition 37 campaign working?

JOHN MYERS: The early campaign polling was very much in favor of Prop. 37, somewhere in the magnitude of 60 + percent of those polled said they would vote for the measure. But the polling has come down some, at least in part from the massive onslaught of ads — from the opposition side, from the “No on 37″ side — they have knocked down some of that support. But again, the bottom line that Californians seem to think about is: “I want to know what a genetically modified food is when I go to the grocery store.” Of course it’s a little bit more complicated than that, which is part of the discussion.

SCOTT SHAFER: And as you mentioned, the “No” side has outraised proponents on Prop. 37 by something like seven to one. Where’s the money coming from on each side?

JOHN MYERS: On the “Yes” side, the money clearly was coming from organic food producers, natural food producers, they’re the ones who helped get it on the ballot. They’re the ones running the campaign. They don’t have a tremendous amount of money, but they have made their presence known. The “No on 37″ side, I like to call “big food,” and you can look at every large food manufacturer in the United States and you probably can see their money in the “No” campaign. You’re seeing a lot of their ads both on television and on the internet.

SCOTT SHAFER: And they have raised at least $34 million. What are the basic messages of their campaign?

JOHN MYERS: Their message is simply that Prop. 37 is more complicated than it really seems. They call it the “deceptive food labeling act.” What Prop. 37 essentially says is you’ve got to label these foods that are genetically engineered but you also have to label foods that have genetically engineered components.

SCOTT SHAFER: Let’s move to Proposition 32. It would prohibit political contributions from unions or corporations — but specifically unions which use payroll deductions from their members.

Here’s a “Yes on 32″ ad:

SCOTT SHAFER: The central provision there is it’s an even-handed measure — cuts the power of unions and corporations equally. How accurate is that?

JOHN MYERS: The language of Prop. 32 absolutely says it treats corporations and unions the same. The reality is that unions only get their money in California — for California politics, from one place — from these deductions from paychecks of their members. Corporations play politics, and they give political money many other ways.

This is a measure that would impact unions substantially more in the political arena than it would corporations. We’ve fought a similar fight here twice before in California, in 1998 and 2005. Both had ballot measures that would have limited this paycheck deduction process that unions use. In those measures, it would have said unions would have to get permission from their members. This measure, Prop. 32, says, “It doesn’t matter. You can’t do it.” Only voluntary contributions, no more of these automatic deductions from paychecks to use the money for politics. And that is a big, big fight for unions, and that’s why unions have spent so much against it.

SCOTT SHAFER: $40 million and counting. And there was some controversy this week about an $11 million contribution to the “Yes on 32″ campaign, can you sort that out for us?

JOHN MYERS: We’re still trying to sort out where that money came from. The $11 million came from an Arizona-based Political Action Committee, and why it raised red flags is that this PAC – as near as we can tell from all our research — has never played in California before — which has led the unions and the “No on 32″ people and perhaps some campaign finance watchers to conclude that perhaps there is a back door here around campaign rules.

There are some wiggle areas in California campaign finance laws that allow donors to remain hidden as long as they only play one time in these big donations. There’s a belief that it comes from conservative groups. There are a lot of conservative groups that want to see 32 passed because they think it would negate the power of unions in California.

Here’s a “No on 32″ commercial:

SCOTT SHAFER: It is funded, as they suggest in that ad, by big corporations and Super PACs. Is that right?

JOHN MYERS: The “Yes on 32″ campaign, it’s hard to see any big corporation money in it right now. The vast majority of the money has come from these Political Action Committees from outside California that we’ve had trouble tracking the donors. It definitely affects one side of the playing field more. I think it is suspect, though, for the “No on 32″ Campaign to say it’s going to impact the middle class. There’s another ad that says it will give corporations power to raise your taxes and things like that. Let’s get back to reality. In California, the only way to raise taxes in the state legislature is a two-thirds super-majority vote that requires Republicans and Republicans have never wanted to vote for tax increases. But it would shift the political power in the state.

One other thing – Prop 32 includes this language that says corporations and unions can no longer give contributions to candidate committees. And what that effectively would do, if you had money for unions, would push all that money to these outside expenditure groups, these are like Super PACs on the national level, that we’ve had in California for awhile where they can spend money in unlimited amounts. It would re-route the money and that is a fair point that the “No on 32″ campaign has been making.

Learn More:

Prop. 32 Ban on Political Donations Heavily Weighted Against Labor

Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter? 

(Ho John Lee: Flickr)

After two weeks of political conventions, fact-checkers are likely taking a moment to catch their breath before diving back into the drive toward the November 6 finish. But how much of an impact do fact-checkers make on the electorate? Several guests joined KQED Forum host Michael Krasny this morning to look at Fact vs. Fiction on the Campaign Trail.

First up, the broad swath of undecided voters this election year, care deeply about issues, more so than in past years, says Barbara O’Connor, Director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at CSU-Sacramento. She’s just back from a week in swing-state Virginia where the talked to hundreds of voters.

“They’re very tired of the PAC ads and the untruth,” O’Connor said. “When you talk to them and I was at a Nascar race … They do care and they care very much about these wonky issues. I haven’t asked them but I’ll start doing that out of curiosity whether they’re paying attention to the fact checkers, but they certainly care about the issues, more than I’ve ever seen on both sides. … Moreover, I think we will have more people watching the debates than we’ve ever seen.”

The big challenge is the complexity of the issues and what that means for campaign statements, speeches and ads. Erik Wemple opinion blogger for the Washington Post believes the complexity and the competing plans can lead to truth stretching or worse. “There is quite a lot of space for you to bend facts, figures, and bend reality, because what you’re talking about is terribly complicated to begin with. So there are these issues here .. that lend themselves perhaps more so in previous campaigns to chicanery.”

This new level of chicanery (or what some people call “lying”) makes the job of fact-checkers more important than ever. While it seems at face value that voters would respond to having inaccuracies pointed out, Bill Adair, creator and editor of Politifact and its trademarked Truth-O-Meter says no one really knows. ”We don’t know the answer to that because there’s not good research,” Adair told the Forum audience. “I would expect it’s going to be on folks in the middle. People who have strong partisan leanings either way are probably not going to accept a message that says your guy is wrong. But I think that those folks in the middle are more persuadable — that’s what campaign strategists call them, “persuade-ables.” I think the research will show they are more receptive to a fact-checking message.”

Pointing specifically to Republican vice-presidential candidate’s Paul Ryan‘s speech, which was roundly criticized for inaccuracies, the Post’s Wemple said he wasn’t sure about the consequences for the speech. ”Fact-checking is not that mature. It started several years ago. It hasn’t had decades and decades to harden its place in the public dialogue. So it may take a few more cycles before people really get scared about fact-checkers but it’s growing.”

Both fact-checker Forum guests — Adair and Eugene Kiely from FactCheck — said they believe their goal is not to change politicians but to create a more informed electorate. Adair likened his role to that of an umpire and the electorate to the fans watching the game. “We don’t expect they’re going to agree with us every time. … I hope that voters come away from our work informed about what the issues are.”

Listen to Forum: